Painful Reviews (2): Democracy

Last summer; I was vacationing with my wife at a friend's house in a village on the shores of the Atlantic Ocean in northern France. One day I read in the newspaper that Pierre Rosanvallon published a new book entitled "The Century of Populism" (Le siècle du populisme); I pointed out to my wife that I wanted to buy the book, so I presented it saying that there is no library in this village, and the nearest library is in the city of Nantes, which is two hundred and fifty kilometers away. I said and what is the problem? We will be back before sunset. She looked at me laughing and then said: My command is to God.

Certainly, I would not have been carrying my wife the hardship of driving alone five hundred kilometers (and my condition as it is) for a writer other than the man whom I have read voraciously for years, and from whom I learned everything I knew about the history of democracy, and he believed those who said: One does not understand a subject before knowing With his history.

I did not finish reading the book except with a deep wave of anxiety that raged against me, as the man proved that it had aggravated a wave of its populist name, which claimed democracy in Hungary, Bologna, Venezuela and Brazil, and threatened it in its oldest and hardest strongholds, such as America, Italy, France and the Netherlands ... and the rope fell upon the tractor, and we might rage our days and aggravate our A situation can no longer tolerate more errors.

Why is this fear? Because the synchronization of economic hardships, environmental hazards, the Corona pandemic and what may follow it; Exposed and will expose most peoples to strong anguish and sustainable pain, which will make them prey to all fraudsters and impostors who are good at playing on feelings of fear and anger, and the search for a savior who considers them a lie and a testimony that he possesses a magic solution to their problems, unlike the ruling elites who see their confusion and it does not occur to them that the proposed medicine may be an order from The disease.

The book also raised a severe irony to me as I discover that the populists and the tyranny today are repeating their sins on representative democracy, and they are unaware that these sins were repeated in a thousand tongues and in a thousand conventions and in the same terms, in the year 1830, the year 1870, the year 1934 and the year 1948, i.e. during all the crises in France Especially, Europe in general.

**

If someone asked me to summarize democracy for him in three words, I would say: It is impossible, but let me try in three sentences:
- It is the peaceful disposal of conflicts within a pluralistic society of its nature, in order to preserve its unity and stability.
- It is a rule of law that delivers all the rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to their owners, so it cannot be confiscated nor will any of them be restricted.
It is the authority of sustainable institutions freely and fairly elected, that use and not use elected persons.

On the contrary, You see authoritarianism and populists dividing society into "them" and "us", into traitors and patriots. Some may remember the horror of the song “You are a people and we are a people” that accompanied the coup against democracy in Egypt, that fateful summer of 2013.

Procedurally, the first thing they initiate upon reaching power is to bring the parliament to its knees or to dissolve it, because it is the most important institution of representative democracy, and there is only with its requirements from the parties and elections that make this representation, and then it overthrowed the regime and killed it.

The authoritarian and populist overturned one man's hatred for representative democracy, but for various reasons; For the populists, it confiscates the sovereignty of the people through institutions - such as Parliament - that claim to represent it, and it only represents corrupt elites. As for the solution to crystallizing the "real" sovereignty of the people, it is a direct democracy that places the people in all decision-making positions.

As for the tyrants, there is no place in their minds, neither for representative democracy nor for the other directly, except as a cover for the authority of the leader and his gang, since the people do not originally believe in the sovereignty of a people who despise him.

**

It is not easier to monitor the reason for the despotic hatred of Parliament. How and why not - since the establishment of the foundation in Europe and through countless conflicts and battles, and among the revolutions, including the English Revolution in 1642 and the French Revolution in 1789 - he has not ceased to restrict the powers of the absolute authority, whether he is a king or president, the last of which was his most dangerous looting A file he has, which is the enactment of taxes and disposal of the state budget.

As for the reason for the people's hatred for parliament, it is more complicated. They claim that direct or council democracy is the finest form of democracy, because "representation is a shame." What they ignore is that representative democracy is a council democracy but codified and sustainable. Parliament is the largest council, along with thousands of other councils, such as municipal councils, civil society organizations, or trade unions, etc. They are all arenas for active participation of the most responsible and responsible people.

Regarding acting, The populists reject it for others and accept it for themselves. Do they not say that their leader is a representative of the people, and then the implicit recognition comes that the people as a whole cannot negotiate with foreign countries and that the task must be entrusted to a representative of what the President of the Republic calls for himself who represents him in foreign countries as foreign minister and diplomats? In fact, they are covered with this argument, the real reason.

Rosenvalon describes the populist leader as the man / people, i.e. the person whose followers see that he was able - with his subtle sense - to capture all the signals transmitted by the people's pain and hopes, and to rise up to give his life to soothe the hopes and fulfill the hopes, and such an inspiring being needs only for the disciples and implementers.

No wonder, then, that they consider that parliament is a barrier between the redeemed leader and his imaginative holy people, just as the church stands a barrier between the Lord and His servants, and the fact that neither the leader nor the Creator needs any mediators who are just intruders and parasites. The best slogan for tyranny is the famous cry of France's King Louis XIV, "I am the State." The populist leader goes further, and his motto is: "I am the people."

A note about this “I” who sometimes wants the state and sometimes the people to identify with it; That is, it covers all the funny, weeping names such as “The Great Mujahid” in Tunisia, the “Leading Leader” in most Arab dictatorships, the “Codio” in Spain, General Franco, the “Condocator” in Romania, Nicolae Ceausescu, and the “Little Father of the Peoples” in The Soviet Union under Stalin, the "Great Saltman" in China, Mao Zedong, etc.

And because it is the same type of human being, we will call it "the only" among people, because this person in relation to himself and his followers is the chaos of his time, none of the people is competent for him and he - unlike ordinary humans - is able to absorb the state in all its complexity or the people with all their plurality and contradictions.

Let us describe this idea as naive and primitive so that we do not get accused of delirium and madness. Since the whole story is reduced to the struggle between the ego and the institutions, it is necessary to highlight this ego, which dreams of being the state and the people, and why not both.

In order to explain the idea, I have to present the conceptual framework in which it is included:
- The task of raising a home is to rid the child of his selfishness, violence, and injustice, and teach him to share, share and accept the other. At the collective level, this is the task of religion, law and culture.

- Success in education, individually or collectively, is an endless process. Generations follow and with each generation education begins from scratch. It is also a process of varying success and you have many possibilities.

All children are old, but the process of maturity may stop at some of them at any age. This is how you will be faced with children in their thirties, fifty years, or even seventy, because they have preserved the most important characteristics of the child, that is: narcissism, selfishness, injustice, violence, and requests that do not stop, and for free.

The bottom line: authoritarianism - like populism - ideology of children who are old and not mature. Within the system, whatever the time and place, you find the same structure: on the one hand, an elderly / child who wants an entire nation to be his mother, overwhelms him with an uninterrupted flood of admiration and love, praises him day and night, obeys all his requests and considers the center of the universe.

On the opposite end; You find an elder / children who want a father who protects them and satisfies their demands, and perhaps a biological father who has not lived up to their dreams as children plays in the schoolyard.

On the contrary, Democracy is shaped like a system like those who grew old and matured at the same time, and they were able, if not to get rid of childhood - the child's instincts that inhabit them - with varying strength, then at least control it.

This is how you will see its rulers accepting that they are the only pathers whose mission is to operate the institutions, and humility is the first of their characteristics due to their knowledge of their borders and the enormous complexity of the problems that lie with them. Thus, you will see the convicts rise up if they are treated as subjects or wishing, and they only accept the status of responsible adult citizens.

**

It is absurd to ask populists and authoritarianists to review their positions and ask: Why did all populist and authoritarian regimes collapse in the last two centuries, while democracy invaded the world and imposed even populism and tyranny dealing with its mechanisms by falsification or bidding?

This does not preclude the saying that democracy has many faults, even if the sects of the populists and authoritarianism have a word of truth that I want to be false. Is it not the Democrats ’duty to turn to the word of truth and ignore the intended falsehood?

From where do we defend the performance of parliament in Tunisia nine years after the revolution, which gives Tunisians the worst possible picture? How many quarrels televised live throughout these years in the context of the policy of transparency, as it provoked the majority of people - including the writer of these lines - feelings that come close to getting sick. And what is said about the Tunisian parliament is the same words that you hear even in the oldest democratic countries. Therefore, we will generalize the questions and will not single out Tunisia, Iraq, or any other country.

Is it not true that a purely political democracy - without a social democracy that guarantees the economic rights of the lost majority - is like plowing at sea? Is it not true that corruption is eating away at most democratic parties? Then the question arises: How can corrupt parties eliminate corruption? The question within that question is: Which mechanisms - especially with regard to financing - must be reviewed to ensure the maximum possible integrity and hand hygiene in such necessary organizations - alongside civil society organizations - for a healthy democracy?

Is it not true that some media - by following corrupt capital - is the most serious threat to democracy that allows it to exist? Today it is the greatest factor in destroying consciousness, culture and values. It has become a tool for misleading the people and pushing them to take positions against their interests in line with those of the hidden lobby. Then the question will be: How can we protect the people from misleading without compromising the freedom of opinion and expression, that is, how can we avoid sacrificing the infant when we seek to get rid of his bath water?

Is it not true that the elections - in their current form - serve only parties? Did you not reach the power of the rival factions and even suspicious people? This is how citizens - who had been waiting for politicians to solve their problems - spent most of the time in front of the screens watching the politicians ’problems.

Hence, how can we reformulate electoral laws that make entering the councils difficult except for the best people, and always produce a majority that is able to rule without entering into suspicious and failed deals, and deliberation between harmonious majority governments is what produces the fat from the fat?

Is it not true that democratic citizenship does not stop at casting votes in every electoral round, and then the question: How can the field of participation and the field of communication between voters and elected be broadened until we approach the supreme goal of a democratic system: a people of citizens driven by fair laws and clean institutions in the context of pluralism, freedom and peace ?

How many other questions narrow the field mentioned must also be placed on the table, and that the diagnosis is without equivocation and treatment quickly, albeit painful!

**

The biggest difference between democracy - on the one hand - and populism and tyranny is that democracy can treat its diseases with more democracy, i.e. with more dialogue, better law, and a rebuilding of institutions according to the experience gained. As for tyranny, he cannot be absolved with more tyranny, that is, with more violence, corruption, and fraud. Likewise, populism cannot save itself from bankruptcy with more slogans, demagoguery, and incitement to chaos.

Therefore, the democrats today - in Tunisia and in all Arab countries, whether they are in power or in the opposition - have to close ranks and review many of their mistakes, and prepare to confront a pandemic of populism and tyranny that will not take us away as it happened more than once, but its cost will be exorbitant, and this The poor nation paid more than all nations, and it is sufficient for it.

Certainly, part of the high price is due to a lack of cultural immunity that makes us more sick than other nations. Do we not get excited by the poet / child saying: “It is the helpless who does not despot,” and the opposite is true? Wouldn't many confuse prestige and arrogance, between power and violence, as if Gandhi or Mandela were weak, and Ben Ali or Assad were among the strong?

We will become strong when it permeates our hearts and minds with the conviction that there is no stronger community and political system based on the strongest institutions and the most just laws, nor weaker than society and a political system governed by army rifles and police whips, led by everyone who drives it from within it a child who refuses to grow up and mature.